TM (Jamaica) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department

TM (Jamaica) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The appellants failed to satisfy the requirements of Immigration Rule 297(i) as they did not establish that their mother had sole responsibility for their upbringing or that there were serious and compelling family or other considerations making their exclusion undesirable. The Adjudicator and Tribunal made no error of law in their treatment of the evidence, and the interference with Article 8 rights was proportionate to the need for immigration control.

Parties
Claimants/appellants: TM (Jamaica) & ANR; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Immigration Appeal / Appeal From the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal to the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Entry Clearance, Indefinite Leave to Enter, Dependent Children, Article 8 ECHR, Immigration Rules HC395 Rule 297
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Entry Clearance Indefinite Leave to Enter Dependent Children Article 8 ECHR Immigration Rules HC395 Rule 297

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TM (Jamaica) & ANR

Claimants/appellants

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration Appeal / Appeal From the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal to the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants satisfied the requirements of Immigration Rule 297(i) for entry clearance as dependent children
  2. 2 Whether the exclusion of the appellants would breach their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator and Tribunal erred in law in their treatment of evidence regarding the younger appellant's sexual activity and care arrangements

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to satisfy the requirements of Immigration Rule 297(i) as they did not establish that their mother had sole responsibility for their upbringing or that there were serious and compelling family or other considerations making their exclusion undesirable. The Adjudicator and Tribunal made no error of law in their treatment of the evidence, and the interference with Article 8 rights was proportionate to the need for immigration control.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed